Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.430, 0.174

0.407

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.014

0.134

-0.277, 0.249

0.917

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.258

0.194

-0.123, 0.639

0.186

Pseudo R square

0.005

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.381

-0.827, 0.667

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.229

0.254

-0.726, 0.268

0.368

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

0.369

0.283, 1.73

0.007

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.504

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.712

-1.06, 1.73

0.638

time_point

1st

2nd

0.720

0.409

-0.082, 1.52

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.14

0.597

-0.029, 2.31

0.057

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.185

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.261

-0.480, 0.544

0.903

time_point

1st

2nd

0.033

0.176

-0.313, 0.378

0.853

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.276

0.257

-0.227, 0.780

0.283

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.291

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.411

-0.462, 1.15

0.404

time_point

1st

2nd

0.381

0.262

-0.133, 0.896

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.439

0.382

-0.311, 1.19

0.253

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.545, 0.913

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.346

0.214

-0.074, 0.766

0.108

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.281

0.312

-0.332, 0.893

0.370

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.215

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.304

-0.987, 0.203

0.198

time_point

1st

2nd

0.043

0.217

-0.382, 0.468

0.843

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.797

0.315

0.179, 1.41

0.012

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.877

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.240

-3.72, 1.14

0.300

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.51

0.670

-2.83, -0.202

0.025

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.201

0.977

-1.71, 2.12

0.837

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.408

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.577

-1.14, 1.12

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.390

0.347

-0.291, 1.07

0.263

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.215

0.506

-0.777, 1.21

0.672

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.515

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.729

-0.589, 2.27

0.250

time_point

1st

2nd

0.385

0.429

-0.456, 1.23

0.370

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.168

0.625

-1.06, 1.39

0.789

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.643

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.909

-0.414, 3.15

0.134

time_point

1st

2nd

1.20

0.495

0.229, 2.17

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.156

0.722

-1.57, 1.26

0.829

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.335

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.474

-0.576, 1.28

0.458

time_point

1st

2nd

0.337

0.265

-0.183, 0.857

0.205

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.001

0.387

-0.759, 0.757

0.999

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.542

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.767

-1.50, 1.50

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.793

0.441

-0.073, 1.66

0.074

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.236

0.643

-1.03, 1.50

0.714

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.628

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.888

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

1.08

0.480

0.139, 2.02

0.026

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.248

0.700

-1.62, 1.12

0.724

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.390

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.551

-0.320, 1.84

0.169

time_point

1st

2nd

0.751

0.352

0.062, 1.44

0.034

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.491

0.512

-0.513, 1.49

0.339

Pseudo R square

0.024

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.251

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.354

0.050, 1.44

0.037

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.110

0.213

-0.527, 0.307

0.606

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.430

0.310

-0.177, 1.04

0.167

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.285

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.403

-0.398, 1.18

0.332

time_point

1st

2nd

0.344

0.237

-0.121, 0.808

0.149

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.325

0.345

-0.351, 1.00

0.347

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.295

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.417

-0.121, 1.51

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.307

0.227

-0.138, 0.753

0.177

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.214

0.331

-0.435, 0.863

0.520

Pseudo R square

0.018

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.540

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.763

-0.408, 2.58

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.664

0.396

-0.112, 1.44

0.095

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.526

0.577

-0.606, 1.66

0.363

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.818

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.156

-3.48, 1.05

0.294

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.827

0.633

-2.07, 0.413

0.193

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.43

0.922

-3.24, 0.377

0.123

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.447

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.633

-0.232, 2.25

0.112

time_point

1st

2nd

0.370

0.346

-0.308, 1.05

0.286

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.526

0.504

-0.462, 1.51

0.298

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.363

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.514

0.001, 2.01

0.051

time_point

1st

2nd

0.549

0.308

-0.054, 1.15

0.076

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.339

0.448

-0.540, 1.22

0.451

Pseudo R square

0.027

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.772

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.091

-0.123, 4.15

0.066

time_point

1st

2nd

0.917

0.598

-0.255, 2.09

0.127

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.861

0.872

-0.848, 2.57

0.325

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.140

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.198

-0.461, 0.317

0.717

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.229

0.166

-0.554, 0.096

0.169

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.330

0.241

-0.141, 0.802

0.171

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.310

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.439

-0.140, 1.58

0.102

time_point

1st

2nd

0.655

0.321

0.025, 1.28

0.043

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.708

0.467

-1.62, 0.207

0.131

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.377

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.534

-0.582, 1.51

0.385

time_point

1st

2nd

0.616

0.343

-0.057, 1.29

0.074

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.317

0.500

-0.663, 1.30

0.526

Pseudo R square

0.013

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.618

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.874

-0.530, 2.90

0.177

time_point

1st

2nd

1.28

0.578

0.149, 2.41

0.028

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.410

0.841

-2.06, 1.24

0.627

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.403

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.569

-0.588, 1.64

0.355

time_point

1st

2nd

0.729

0.336

0.071, 1.39

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.066

0.490

-0.894, 1.03

0.893

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.224

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.316

-0.628, 0.612

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.215

0.242

-0.260, 0.690

0.376

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.509

0.352

-0.181, 1.20

0.150

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.276

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.390

-0.852, 0.676

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.484

0.281

-1.04, 0.067

0.087

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.471

0.409

-1.27, 0.331

0.251

Pseudo R square

0.016

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.459

-0.676, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.404

0.260

-0.912, 0.105

0.121

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.618

0.378

-1.36, 0.123

0.104

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.332

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.470

-1.00, 0.841

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.555

0.266

-1.08, -0.033

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.188

0.388

-0.949, 0.572

0.628

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.333

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.471

-0.516, 1.33

0.387

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.364

0.264

-0.881, 0.152

0.169

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.620

0.384

-1.37, 0.133

0.108

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.934

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.320

-2.04, 3.14

0.676

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.32

0.668

-2.63, -0.007

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.37

0.975

-3.28, 0.542

0.162

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(428) = 29.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(428) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25], t(428) = -0.10, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.64], t(428) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(428) = 66.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.27], t(428) = -0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.28, 1.73], t(428) = 2.73, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.10, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(428) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(428) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.52], t(428) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.31], t(428) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-5.10e-03, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(428) = 62.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38], t(428) = 0.18, p = 0.853; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78], t(428) = 1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(428) = 59.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(428) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.90], t(428) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.19], t(428) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(428) = 49.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77], t(428) = 1.61, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.89], t(428) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(428) = 46.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(428) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.47], t(428) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.18, 1.41], t(428) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.07, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(428) = 35.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(428) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-2.83, -0.20], t(428) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.12], t(428) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(428) = 54.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(428) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.07], t(428) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.21], t(428) = 0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(428) = 47.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(428) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.23], t(428) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.39], t(428) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(428) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.23, 2.17], t(428) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.26], t(428) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(428) = 31.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(428) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.86], t(428) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.78e-04, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.76], t(428) = -1.75e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -1.82e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(428) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(428) = 1.63e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -4.44e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.66], t(428) = 1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.50], t(428) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(428) = 34.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(428) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [0.14, 2.02], t(428) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.12], t(428) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(428) = 41.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(428) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [0.06, 1.44], t(428) = 2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.49], t(428) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(428) = 52.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(428) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.31], t(428) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.04], t(428) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(428) = 58.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.81], t(428) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.00], t(428) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(428) = 42.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.75], t(428) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.86], t(428) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(428) = 54.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(428) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.44], t(428) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.66], t(428) = 0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(428) = 34.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(428) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.41], t(428) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.38], t(428) = -1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(428) = 30.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(428) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.05], t(428) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.51], t(428) = 1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(428) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [1.11e-03, 2.01], t(428) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.70e-04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.15], t(428) = 1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.22], t(428) = 0.76, p = 0.450; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(428) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.25, 2.09], t(428) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.57], t(428) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(428) = 91.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(428) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10], t(428) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.80], t(428) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(428) = 46.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(428) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.02, 1.28], t(428) = 2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [7.14e-03, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.21], t(428) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(428) = 34.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.29], t(428) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.30], t(428) = 0.63, p = 0.525; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(428) = 44.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(428) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.15, 2.41], t(428) = 2.22, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.24], t(428) = -0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(428) = 46.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.64], t(428) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.07, 1.39], t(428) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.03], t(428) = 0.13, p = 0.893; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(428) = 64.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(428) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.69], t(428) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.20], t(428) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(428) = 42.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.07], t(428) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.33], t(428) = -1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(428) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.10], t(428) = -1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.12], t(428) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(428) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(428) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.08, -0.03], t(428) = -2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, -8.87e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.57], t(428) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(428) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.15], t(428) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.13], t(428) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(428) = 31.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(428) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-2.63, -7.31e-03], t(428) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -7.02e-04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.28, 0.54], t(428) = -1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,382.998

1,395.217

-688.499

1,376.998

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,385.937

1,410.376

-686.969

1,373.937

3.060

3

0.382

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,104.288

2,116.508

-1,049.144

2,098.288

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,100.538

2,124.977

-1,044.269

2,088.538

9.750

3

0.021

ras_confidence

null

3

2,613.524

2,625.743

-1,303.762

2,607.524

ras_confidence

random

6

2,597.870

2,622.308

-1,292.935

2,585.870

21.654

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,774.040

1,786.260

-884.020

1,768.040

ras_willingness

random

6

1,776.951

1,801.389

-882.475

1,764.951

3.090

3

0.378

ras_goal

null

3

2,160.294

2,172.514

-1,077.147

2,154.294

ras_goal

random

6

2,154.052

2,178.491

-1,071.026

2,142.052

12.242

3

0.007

ras_reliance

null

3

2,039.354

2,051.573

-1,016.677

2,033.354

ras_reliance

random

6

2,034.721

2,059.159

-1,011.361

2,022.721

10.633

3

0.014

ras_domination

null

3

1,930.908

1,943.127

-962.454

1,924.908

ras_domination

random

6

1,923.481

1,947.919

-955.740

1,911.481

13.428

3

0.004

symptom

null

3

3,062.415

3,074.635

-1,528.208

3,056.415

symptom

random

6

3,059.018

3,083.456

-1,523.509

3,047.018

9.398

3

0.024

slof_work

null

3

2,427.863

2,440.083

-1,210.932

2,421.863

slof_work

random

6

2,429.886

2,454.324

-1,208.943

2,417.886

3.977

3

0.264

slof_relationship

null

3

2,623.439

2,635.659

-1,308.720

2,617.439

slof_relationship

random

6

2,625.493

2,649.931

-1,306.746

2,613.493

3.947

3

0.267

satisfaction

null

3

2,797.945

2,810.164

-1,395.972

2,791.945

satisfaction

random

6

2,792.241

2,816.679

-1,390.121

2,780.241

11.704

3

0.008

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,232.889

2,245.108

-1,113.444

2,226.889

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,235.293

2,259.731

-1,111.646

2,223.293

3.596

3

0.309

mhc_social

null

3

2,664.481

2,676.700

-1,329.240

2,658.481

mhc_social

random

6

2,662.580

2,687.018

-1,325.290

2,650.580

7.901

3

0.048

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,770.587

2,782.806

-1,382.294

2,764.587

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,768.947

2,793.385

-1,378.474

2,756.947

7.640

3

0.054

resilisnce

null

3

2,420.467

2,432.686

-1,207.233

2,414.467

resilisnce

random

6

2,408.085

2,432.523

-1,198.042

2,396.085

18.382

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

2,009.077

2,021.296

-1,001.538

2,003.077

social_provision

random

6

2,005.502

2,029.940

-996.751

1,993.502

9.575

3

0.023

els_value_living

null

3

2,115.492

2,127.711

-1,054.746

2,109.492

els_value_living

random

6

2,110.730

2,135.168

-1,049.365

2,098.730

10.762

3

0.013

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,119.246

2,131.465

-1,056.623

2,113.246

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,115.137

2,139.575

-1,051.569

2,103.137

10.109

3

0.018

els

null

3

2,631.741

2,643.960

-1,312.870

2,625.741

els

random

6

2,624.212

2,648.650

-1,306.106

2,612.212

13.529

3

0.004

social_connect

null

3

3,011.555

3,023.774

-1,502.778

3,005.555

social_connect

random

6

3,002.390

3,026.829

-1,495.195

2,990.390

15.165

3

0.002

shs_agency

null

3

2,483.282

2,495.501

-1,238.641

2,477.282

shs_agency

random

6

2,478.437

2,502.876

-1,233.219

2,466.437

10.845

3

0.013

shs_pathway

null

3

2,336.953

2,349.172

-1,165.477

2,330.953

shs_pathway

random

6

2,327.315

2,351.754

-1,157.658

2,315.315

15.638

3

0.001

shs

null

3

2,961.468

2,973.687

-1,477.734

2,955.468

shs

random

6

2,952.628

2,977.066

-1,470.314

2,940.628

14.840

3

0.002

esteem

null

3

1,591.533

1,603.752

-792.766

1,585.533

esteem

random

6

1,595.147

1,619.585

-791.573

1,583.147

2.386

3

0.496

mlq_search

null

3

2,250.059

2,262.278

-1,122.029

2,244.059

mlq_search

random

6

2,250.724

2,275.162

-1,119.362

2,238.724

5.335

3

0.149

mlq_presence

null

3

2,387.397

2,399.616

-1,190.699

2,381.397

mlq_presence

random

6

2,382.543

2,406.982

-1,185.272

2,370.543

10.854

3

0.013

mlq

null

3

2,821.465

2,833.684

-1,407.732

2,815.465

mlq

random

6

2,819.126

2,843.564

-1,403.563

2,807.126

8.339

3

0.040

empower

null

3

2,416.503

2,428.722

-1,205.252

2,410.503

empower

random

6

2,412.011

2,436.449

-1,200.006

2,400.011

10.492

3

0.015

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,981.903

1,994.122

-987.951

1,975.903

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,978.798

2,003.236

-983.399

1,966.798

9.105

3

0.028

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,151.386

2,163.605

-1,072.693

2,145.386

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,143.891

2,168.329

-1,065.945

2,131.891

13.495

3

0.004

sss_affective

null

3

2,221.175

2,233.394

-1,107.587

2,215.175

sss_affective

random

6

2,211.289

2,235.727

-1,099.644

2,199.289

15.886

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,237.261

2,249.481

-1,115.631

2,231.261

sss_behavior

random

6

2,232.020

2,256.458

-1,110.010

2,220.020

11.242

3

0.010

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,238.857

2,251.076

-1,116.429

2,232.857

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,230.562

2,255.001

-1,109.281

2,218.562

14.295

3

0.003

sss

null

3

3,103.636

3,115.855

-1,548.818

3,097.636

sss

random

6

3,091.854

3,116.293

-1,539.927

3,079.854

17.781

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.407

0.132

recovery_stage_a

2nd

98

3.19 ± 1.20

0.014

86

3.32 ± 1.20

-0.251

0.464

-0.134

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.044

recovery_stage_b

2nd

98

17.65 ± 2.88

0.126

86

18.58 ± 2.82

-0.429

0.028

-0.512

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.63

125

30.02 ± 5.63

0.637

-0.116

ras_confidence

2nd

98

30.41 ± 5.30

-0.248

86

31.89 ± 5.14

-0.640

0.056

-0.508

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.06

125

11.66 ± 2.06

0.903

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

98

11.66 ± 1.98

-0.026

86

11.96 ± 1.94

-0.245

0.286

-0.245

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.25

125

17.53 ± 3.25

0.404

-0.184

ras_goal

2nd

98

17.57 ± 3.09

-0.204

86

18.35 ± 3.02

-0.438

0.084

-0.418

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.121

ras_reliance

2nd

98

13.49 ± 2.77

-0.227

86

13.95 ± 2.68

-0.411

0.249

-0.305

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.197

0.253

ras_domination

2nd

98

9.99 ± 2.31

-0.028

86

10.40 ± 2.27

-0.541

0.232

-0.261

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.81

125

30.21 ± 9.81

0.300

0.271

symptom

2nd

98

29.98 ± 9.17

0.319

86

28.89 ± 8.87

0.277

0.415

0.229

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.56

125

22.06 ± 4.56

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

98

22.45 ± 4.31

-0.158

86

22.66 ± 4.19

-0.245

0.742

-0.084

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.76

125

25.34 ± 5.76

0.250

-0.275

slof_relationship

2nd

98

24.89 ± 5.43

-0.126

86

25.90 ± 5.28

-0.181

0.203

-0.330

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.19

125

21.03 ± 7.19

0.134

-0.390

satisfaction

2nd

98

20.86 ± 6.73

-0.342

86

22.08 ± 6.51

-0.297

0.216

-0.345

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.74

125

11.00 ± 3.74

0.458

-0.187

mhc_emotional

2nd

98

10.99 ± 3.51

-0.179

86

11.34 ± 3.40

-0.179

0.492

-0.187

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.06

125

15.13 ± 6.06

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

98

15.92 ± 5.70

-0.253

86

16.16 ± 5.54

-0.328

0.776

-0.075

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.02

125

21.87 ± 7.02

0.719

-0.094

mhc_psychological

2nd

98

22.63 ± 6.56

-0.317

86

22.70 ± 6.35

-0.244

0.940

-0.021

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.36

125

16.94 ± 4.36

0.169

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

98

16.93 ± 4.14

-0.300

86

18.18 ± 4.04

-0.495

0.039

-0.499

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.80

125

13.91 ± 2.80

0.037

-0.492

social_provision

2nd

98

13.06 ± 2.65

0.073

86

14.23 ± 2.57

-0.212

0.002

-0.776

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.332

-0.233

els_value_living

2nd

98

17.10 ± 3.00

-0.204

86

17.82 ± 2.92

-0.397

0.102

-0.426

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.29

125

13.10 ± 3.29

0.096

-0.432

els_life_fulfill

2nd

98

12.72 ± 3.08

-0.191

86

13.63 ± 2.98

-0.324

0.043

-0.565

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.03

125

30.26 ± 6.03

0.155

-0.388

els

2nd

98

29.83 ± 5.62

-0.237

86

31.45 ± 5.43

-0.424

0.048

-0.576

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.14

125

26.66 ± 9.14

0.294

0.271

social_connect

2nd

98

27.05 ± 8.56

0.184

86

24.41 ± 8.28

0.503

0.034

0.590

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 5.00

125

14.85 ± 5.00

0.112

-0.411

shs_agency

2nd

98

14.21 ± 4.68

-0.151

86

15.74 ± 4.53

-0.365

0.025

-0.625

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.06

125

16.34 ± 4.06

0.051

-0.461

shs_pathway

2nd

98

15.88 ± 3.84

-0.251

86

17.22 ± 3.73

-0.406

0.016

-0.615

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.63

125

31.18 ± 8.63

0.066

-0.475

shs

2nd

98

30.09 ± 8.08

-0.216

86

32.96 ± 7.82

-0.419

0.015

-0.678

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.57

125

12.73 ± 1.57

0.717

0.060

esteem

2nd

98

12.57 ± 1.54

0.191

86

12.83 ± 1.53

-0.084

0.255

-0.215

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.47

125

15.08 ± 3.47

0.102

-0.312

mlq_search

2nd

98

15.01 ± 3.35

-0.284

86

15.03 ± 3.30

0.023

0.981

-0.005

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.22

125

13.62 ± 4.22

0.385

-0.190

mlq_presence

2nd

98

13.77 ± 4.02

-0.252

86

14.55 ± 3.92

-0.381

0.183

-0.319

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.91

125

28.70 ± 6.91

0.177

-0.287

mlq

2nd

98

28.79 ± 6.60

-0.311

86

29.57 ± 6.45

-0.211

0.422

-0.188

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.50

125

19.38 ± 4.50

0.355

-0.221

empower

2nd

98

19.58 ± 4.24

-0.305

86

20.17 ± 4.13

-0.333

0.337

-0.249

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.50

125

14.35 ± 2.50

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

98

14.58 ± 2.43

-0.123

86

15.08 ± 2.40

-0.416

0.161

-0.288

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.08

125

11.70 ± 3.08

0.822

0.044

ismi_discrimation

2nd

98

11.31 ± 2.97

0.240

86

10.75 ± 2.92

0.473

0.200

0.277

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.122

sss_affective

2nd

98

10.00 ± 3.41

0.219

86

9.60 ± 3.30

0.555

0.427

0.214

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.71

125

10.10 ± 3.71

0.865

0.042

sss_behavior

2nd

98

9.62 ± 3.49

0.294

86

9.35 ± 3.38

0.393

0.597

0.142

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.73

125

9.12 ± 3.73

0.387

-0.218

sss_cognitive

2nd

98

8.35 ± 3.49

0.195

86

8.14 ± 3.39

0.526

0.677

0.113

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.44

125

29.84 ± 10.44

0.676

-0.117

sss

2nd

98

27.97 ± 9.70

0.278

86

27.15 ± 9.36

0.568

0.562

0.173

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(387.43) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(421.34) = 0.73, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.48)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(324.67) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(387.67) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.75)

ras_confidence

1st

t(302.70) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(363.53) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.99)

ras_willingness

1st

t(327.26) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)

2st

t(389.93) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.88)

ras_goal

1st

t(317.47) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)

2st

t(380.77) = 1.73, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.67)

ras_reliance

1st

t(303.07) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(364.03) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.26)

ras_domination

1st

t(337.94) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(398.25) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.07)

symptom

1st

t(295.53) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(353.42) = -0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.70 to 1.53)

slof_work

1st

t(308.78) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)

2st

t(371.17) = 0.33, p = 0.742, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.44)

slof_relationship

1st

t(305.75) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(367.47) = 1.27, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.56)

satisfaction

1st

t(296.40) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(354.71) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.71 to 3.13)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(299.56) = 0.74, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(359.25) = 0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)

mhc_social

1st

t(302.86) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(363.74) = 0.28, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.87)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(295.64) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(353.58) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.95)

resilisnce

1st

t(317.40) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(380.70) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.44)

social_provision

1st

t(308.42) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(370.75) = 3.05, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.42 to 1.93)

els_value_living

1st

t(305.57) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(367.24) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(296.52) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(354.89) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.79)

els

1st

t(291.45) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(347.07) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.22)

social_connect

1st

t(296.94) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(355.50) = -2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-5.09 to -0.20)

shs_agency

1st

t(296.83) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)

2st

t(355.34) = 2.26, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.87)

shs_pathway

1st

t(308.10) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)

2st

t(370.37) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.44)

shs

1st

t(297.12) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)

2st

t(355.77) = 2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.57 to 5.18)

esteem

1st

t(376.66) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(417.90) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.70)

mlq_search

1st

t(343.32) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(401.87) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.98)

mlq_presence

1st

t(318.81) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(382.12) = 1.33, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.93)

mlq

1st

t(323.27) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.90)

2st

t(386.39) = 0.80, p = 0.422, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.67)

empower

1st

t(306.14) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)

2st

t(367.96) = 0.96, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.81)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(353.86) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(408.01) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.20)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(340.11) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(399.75) = -1.28, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(300.66) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(360.78) = -0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.58)

sss_behavior

1st

t(300.93) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)

2st

t(361.16) = -0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.73)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(299.39) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(359.01) = -0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.79)

sss

1st

t(289.15) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(343.30) = -0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.58 to 1.95)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(220.56) = 1.73, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.52)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(203.63) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.31)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(197.77) = 4.28, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (1.00 to 2.72)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(204.31) = 1.65, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.68)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(201.72) = 2.95, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.37)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(197.87) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.08)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(207.12) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.29)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(195.82) = -1.85, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.09)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(199.41) = 1.64, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.33)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(198.59) = 1.21, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.45)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(196.06) = 1.98, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.08)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(196.92) = 1.20, p = 0.467, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.89)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(197.81) = 2.20, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.95)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(195.85) = 1.63, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.84)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(201.71) = 3.33, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.51 to 1.98)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(199.31) = 1.42, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.77)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(198.54) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.16)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(196.09) = 2.16, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.00)

els

1st vs 2st

t(194.70) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.02)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(196.20) = -3.36, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-3.58 to -0.93)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(196.17) = 2.44, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.62)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(199.23) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.53)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(196.25) = 2.80, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.03)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(217.48) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.45)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(208.53) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.62)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(202.08) = 2.57, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(203.26) = 1.42, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.08)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(198.70) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.50)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(211.31) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.23)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(207.69) = -3.21, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.54 to -0.37)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(197.22) = -3.71, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-1.57 to -0.48)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(197.29) = -2.63, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.30 to -0.19)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(196.87) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.54 to -0.43)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(194.06) = -3.78, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.09 to -1.29)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(209.09) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.25)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(197.02) = -0.90, p = 0.736, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.27)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(192.93) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.53)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(197.49) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(195.68) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.90)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(193.00) = 1.61, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.77)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(199.47) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(191.57) = -2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.84 to -0.19)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(194.07) = 1.12, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.08)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(193.50) = 0.90, p = 0.741, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.23)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(191.74) = 2.42, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.18)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(192.33) = 1.27, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.86)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(192.96) = 1.79, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.66)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(191.59) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.03)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(195.67) = 2.14, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.45)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(194.00) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(193.47) = 1.45, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.81)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(191.76) = 1.35, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.76)

els

1st vs 2st

t(190.79) = 1.68, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.45)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(191.84) = -1.31, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.42)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(191.82) = 1.07, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.05)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(193.94) = 1.78, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(191.87) = 1.53, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.10)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(206.86) = -1.38, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.10)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(200.47) = 2.04, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.29)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(195.93) = 1.79, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.29)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(196.76) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.42)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(193.57) = 2.17, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.39)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(202.43) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(199.87) = -1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.07)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(192.54) = -1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.11)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(192.60) = -2.08, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.08 to -0.03)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(192.30) = -1.38, p = 0.337, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.16)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(190.35) = -1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.00)

Plot

Clinical significance